Subscribe

Commenting Guidelines

The HSLF invites comments—pro and con. Keep them clean. Keep them lively. Adhere to our guiding philosophy of non-violence. And please understand, this is not an open post. We publish samplers of comments to keep the conversation going. We correct misspellings and typos when we find them.

July 2012

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works this morning gave its approval to S. 810, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, marking a major step forward for the legislation to end invasive experiments on chimpanzees and to retire federally-owned chimps to sanctuaries. Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Water and Wildlife Subcommittee Chairman Ben Cardin, D-Md., both spoke eloquently in favor of the bill, which then passed the committee by voice vote. The legislation can now move to the full Senate for consideration.

There are approximately 950 chimpanzees—about half of them owned by the federal government—currently languishing in five U.S. laboratories. Most of them are not being used in active experiments, because chimps have not proven to be a useful research model, but they are still confined in cages at taxpayer expense, and some of them have been there for decades. It’s inhumane to keep these highly intelligent and social creatures in small cages and use them in invasive experiments, and it’s fiscally reckless to continue to throw taxpayer dollars at this issue with all the concern about reining in our nation’s spiraling federal deficit.

Last year a report by the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine concluded that the use of chimps in experiments is largely unnecessary because there are a variety of alternatives available and that the future trajectory is that their use will continue to decline. An amendment to S. 810 approved today by the committee addresses the concerns raised by some critics in the research community who claim that even though chimps are not useful now, they might be needed in the future due to some unforeseen emergency. The modified bill establishes a transparent process for the approval of invasive research on great apes in the event that a new, emerging, or reemerging disease, requires their use, and the criteria used to evaluate proposed research protocols to meet this need are based on the recommendations of the IOM report.

Congress years ago set up a national sanctuary system for retired chimps, and there is a network of private chimpanzee sanctuaries as well. It’s much less costly to care for chimps at sanctuaries where they are housed in groups and in more natural settings, than to warehouse them in individual laboratory cages, and passing this legislation would save U.S. taxpayers an estimated $25 million each year—or a quarter billion dollars over the next decade. Because chimps can live 50 or 60 years, every chimp born into research is a financial commitment for future generations, and it’s time to get off this fiscal treadmill.

We are grateful to Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman Cardin for moving this important bill through committee, and to the bipartisan sponsors of the legislation—Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the Senate, and Reps. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., Steve Israel, D-N.Y., Dave Reichert, R-Wash., Jim Langevin, D-R.I., and Ed Towns, D-N.Y., in the House—for their leadership. Congress should pass the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act before the session ends. It’s inevitable that we’ll end the use of chimpanzees in invasive experiments, but let’s get on with it and delay that humane and fiscally prudent policy no longer.

Friday, July 13, 2012

It’s not uncommon for Washington lobbying groups to set up phony organizations that sound like they are advocating in the public interest, rather than for corporate special interests. Now there’s a new group inside the beltway with the altruistic sounding name “Keep Food Affordable,” set up by the pork industry to attack members of Congress who are backing legislation to improve the treatment of egg-laying hens and provide a stable and secure future for U.S. egg farmers.

So who is this shadowy front group? In this interview, videotaped this summer at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, a board member of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said “it’s funded mainly by NPPC.” And why would the pork producers care about legislation that only deals with laying hens, when they have no involvement in egg production, processing, or sales? Because they have among the worst records on animal welfare—with many large, industrialized operations confining sows in small cages, and producing enormous volumes of waste that pollute the environment. In fact, just this week, The Humane Society of the United States served notices to 51 pig confinement operations in the top pork-producing states for unreported releases of the hazardous pollutant ammonia.

The actual stakeholders involved in egg industry issues agree that Congress should pass S. 3239 and H.R. 3798, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012. This legislation has the backing of animal welfare groups, the egg industry, veterinary groups, and consumer groups. The United Egg Producers, which represents nearly 90 percent of the nation’s egg industry, and The HSUS, the nation’s largest animal welfare organization, have been long-time adversaries, but have come together and identified a pathway forward for housing 280 million laying hens that balances animal welfare and the economic realities of the industry. The nation needs this kind of problem solving, and the Congress should enthusiastically embrace it.

It’s because there are no legitimate arguments against the merits of the egg legislation that the pork industry had to create subterfuge with shell organizations. They have now resorted to attacking co-sponsors of the legislation with childish online ads, making false claims about how the bill affects consumers. In reality, all of the leading consumer groups strongly support the legislation, including the Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, and Center for Science in the Public Interest. One of the benefits for consumers is that the bill would provide labels on egg cartons so shoppers have more information in the marketplace about the conditions in which hens are raised.

Congressman Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the legislation, emphatically told the Staten Island Advocate just what these attacks are all about: “Everyone agrees it’s a good bill, except for a few special interest groups,” he said. “These cowards are hiding behind a front organization to launch misleading attack ads against a broadly-supported and humane policy that doesn’t even directly affect them. They’re the only chickens in this debate.” He’s exactly right.

If this front group truly wanted to “Keep Food Affordable,” it would enthusiastically swing behind the legislation to transition from conventional battery cages, where hens are confined in such small spaces they can barely move an inch for their entire lives, to enriched colony cages which provide each hen with about twice as much space, as well as nesting areas, perches, and scratch pads so they can engage in more natural behaviors. Studies show that enriched colony cages can be better for production than conventional cages, as the hens have lower mortality and higher productivity, making them more economically efficient in important ways for egg producers.

Since the changes would be phased in over the next 15 to 18 years, many during the normal course of replacing aged equipment, any consumer cost increases are expected to be minor. An economic study conducted by the independent research group Agralytica indicates that the changes are expected to increase consumer prices by less than 2 cents per dozen, spread out over an 18-year period. This very small increase, which will happen years into the future, is much less than natural price fluctuations based on a variety of other factors such as energy, feed, and distribution costs. However, if Congress does not pass this legislation, we could see disruptions in the marketplace because states now have conflicting rules, rather than one national standard.

So many newspapers throughout the country have endorsed the legislation, making the point that when all the stakeholders agree on a pathway forward, Congress should ratify the agreement. What if environmentalists and oil industry groups agreed on a path forward on energy production, wouldn’t that be a great day for our country? That’s the kind of landmark accord we have here, except that in Washington, special interest groups hide behind phony front groups and try to retard progress.

Call your members of Congress today at (202) 225-3121, and send them an email, asking them to stand up for legislation that is good for farmers, the economy, consumers, and animal welfare.